(first posted 8/25/2011) During my adolescent years, virtually all of my firsthand experience with cars from the 1950s came from plastic model kits. It seemed from my vantage point that if a car from the ’50s was important, there would be a model kit on the shelf at my nearby drugstore. The fact that a kit for the 1956 Ford Fairlane was on the shelf at seemingly every hobby store and pharmacy led me to conclude that it must have been one of the most iconic cars of the era. Now, all these years later, I still believe that to be true.

It is funny how car styling sometimes works. Much of the time, the designers’ original vision is the best and purest expression of a car. Subsequent facelifts of that car are not always so successful, like the 1958 Ford Fairlane or the 1955 Studebaker.

But I consider the 1956 Ford to be the best looking of the entire run of attractive cars which shared this body shell. The 1952-54 Fords had been good looking cars which were made even prettier by the heavy restyling they received for 1955. Because all-new cars were coming for 1957, the ’56 received only minor changes. A little tweak to the side trim, a change to the shape of the front parking lights and voila – the result was near onto perfection. Never have such small changes taken a very good looking car and made it timeless. The improvements continued inside with the new attractive dashboard with multiple sports car-like circular instruments. I ask you – is there a bad or awkward line anywhere on the ’56 Ford, either inside or out?

It is almost impossible to consider the ’56 Ford without comparing it to the contemporary Chevy (1955 Chevy CC here). For the previous 20 years, Ford had been the choice for the performance minded. Ford buyers had always been willing to trade away a little polish and style for that V8 power. The 1955 Chevrolet was a game changer, however, with its modern styling and its new V8 engine. While Ford had introduced a new V8 in 1954, the Y block design lacked the performance sparkle of Ed Cole’s Chevy unit and Ford fans everywhere had to get used to losing to Chevrolets at stoplight drags. Although the cars were theoretically equal in horsepower (225 bhp for the top engines in 1956) it took Ford 312 cubic inches to do what Chevy did with 265. Still, “Thunderbird 312” sounded pretty impressive to a 12 year old kid.

Another problem would eventually surface with the Y block. The Ford engine developed a reputation for lubrication failure which certainly took a lot of these cars off the roads as they aged. Although they were tough, durable engines when owners were scrupulous with frequent oil changes, they did not suffer neglect gracefully, particularly in the era of non-detergent motor oil.

If we can get past the engine differences, there are few times in history when the contemporary Ford and Chevy were so evenly matched. Both were attractive, well-built cars that gave their owners nothing to be embarrassed about.

The ’56 Ford has a couple of other distinctions. One was that this was the first production car that tried to make sales points from safety features. This was the car on which Ford Lifeguard Design had its debut. Before air bags became ubiquitous, the deep dish steering wheel was used everywhere. This is the first car to have one. The padded dash, safety belts, safety door latches – all of these things would become run of the mill a decade in the future, but here they were on the ’56 Ford line. But while the features stayed, the advertising did not. Because sales of the ’56 were off from 1955’s blockbuster year, conventional wisdom decreed that “safety doesn’t sell”, and it would be a generation or more before an auto company touted its safety features in a meaningful way. The fact that most other manufacturers’ 1956 sales dropped off too must not have mattered.

Another interesting point is that the 1956 Ford line figured significantly in the early career of a young engineer-turned-assistant field sales manager named Lee Iacocca. Iacocca, while working out of Ford’s Philadelphia field sales offices, thought up a sales promotion after sales got off to a slow start: Get a ’56 for $56 – that is buy a new 1956 Ford for $56 per month. When sales perked up in Iacocca’s territory (reportedly going from last place to first among the districts), Ford’s president Robert McNamara noticed. He took the campaign nationwide and brought Iacocca to Ford HQ in Dearborn. Whether it was Lifeguard Design or the $56 promotion, Ford’s 1956 sales dropped by only about 40 thousand units in a down year (compared to a nearly 140 thousand unit drop at Chevrolet).

I found this car quite by accident. My family and I drove downtown to a restaurant one evening earlier this summer. We parked the car a few blocks away and headed for our destination, which required walking under a railroad overpass. There, parked at a meter, was this ’56 Fairlane Tudor Club Sedan. I did what I could on photos with the sub-optimal lighting. My teenage children were chiding their father to get the heck out of the street, but I assured them that this was important work and that they needed to watch for traffic while I snapped some pictures. I am happy to report that no cars, motorists or pedestrians were harmed in the taking of these photos. With a regular license plate and a trailer hitch, it looks like this old Fairlane still earns its keep.

If you took a survey in 1972 and asked people to name the first 1950s car to pop to mind, I suspect that there would have been 3 cars at the top of the list: the 1957 Chevrolet, the 1957 Thunderbird and the 1956 Ford Fairlane. Would the ’56 Fairlane make the list today? I am not sure that it would. The 1955-57 Chevrolet has become more of an icon the older it gets, but the contemporary Ford seems to have receded a bit in our collective memories.

I built at least two of the AMT 1/25th scale model kits in the early 70s and recall studying the lines and the details as I painted the body and trim. it remains one of my favorite cars of the ’50s.

Styling is subjective, of course, but I have always found the ’56 Fairlane to be a more attractive car than any of the ’55-57 Chevrolets. (Duck and cover). This is particularly true when comparing the ’56 Ford and the ’56 Chevy straight up.

The proportions, the sculpting and the restrained trim on the Fairlane seal the deal for me. Truthfully, I have always found the Chevy to be just a trace tall and stubby looking, particularly the sedans. The ’56 Bel Air’s trim details were also a little less clean, more change for the sake of change than honest, well executed design.

To me, the 1956 Fairlane was a nearly perfect design in 1956 that has aged very well.

But a car’s long term success is built on more than just its looks, and it was on those points that Ford faltered a bit. Compared with the contemporary Chevrolet, the 1956 Ford was a bit more rust prone, a bit less quiet, a bit less solid feeling, and at a definite engine disadvantage (in both performance and durability). In short, while the 1956 Fairlane was in the abstract one of the most beautiful and iconic cars of the 1950s, the actual car proved to be not a great car, but merely a good one that disappeared from daily use a lot faster than did the Chevies. Get a few years down the road, and the good has a way of getting separated from the great. Still, had I been around at the time, I would have been very tempted to lay down my 56 bucks and drive home in the prettier car. I think I’ll take the turquoise and white hardtop with a 312 and overdrive.

I was raised in the Texas Panhandle with lots of space. My Dad had a 56 Fairlane Town Sedan Just like the one in your article down to the blue and white job. A 56 or 57 Chevy could beat it red light to red light, but they didn’t even come close on the long empty highways. We used to watch them slowly dissappear out the rear window or in the rearview mirror. A man from Texas in a 56 Fairlane set the record at Bonneville in Class C at just over 152 MPH, and it was driven from Texas to Bonneville. It wasn’t until 1966 when a trailered Plymouth Hemi would eclipse it’s record by about 4 MPH. Not bad for 10 years the record was held by a daily driver that was giving up 114 cubic inches of displacement.
My Dad retired this car in 2 years with over 175,000 miles on it. CB

’56 was definitely a high-water mark for Ford styling, although the ’55 was almost as pretty and the ’57 had some nice lines too.

You make a good point about Chevy vs. Ford styling in 1956. The ’55 Chevy was iconic and sold a record amount of units, but the ’56 more conventional to the times in which it came out, and as the ’55 and ’57 Chevies gained icon status, the ’56 kinda got dragged along, for decades it was the one you got if you wanted a Tri-Five but couldn’t lay your hands on a ’55 or ’57.

Very nice writeup. I think it’s true the ’52-’56 Fords were tremendously popular for almost 20 years and then they seem to have been eclipsed by the tri-5 Chevies. Differences in taste often intrigue me, and so I had to chuckle when I read “The proportions, the sculpting and the restrained trim on the Fairlane seal the deal for me.” Wow, I surely never thought of that huge, multiple band of chrome with the incongruous big dip as “restrained”. I always thought of it as the automotive equivalent of a comb-over. But I do consider the humbler models without that trim to be pretty sharp cars. 🙂

I consider the 56 Ford restrained only by 1956 standards. Compared to that years Mercury, Dodge, Plymouth,or most anything from GM and the independents, the Fairlane was a model of taste and restraint.

1950s two-toning is fascinating to me. How the different manufacturers decided to go about giving a 2 tone treatment to the basic shape of the car gave us some wildly varied results. I am not sure that anyone reached a better result than on the ’56 Fairlane. Maybe the 56 New Yorker or DeSoto?
But the Plymouth and Dodge were terrible, along with Studebaker, Nash and Hudson. The GM attempts were kind of par for the course – better conceived than most, but still pretty flamboyant. The high-end cars largely avoided bad two-toning..

Know what you mean about the 2-tone styles. I always had a thing for the Nash 2-tone paint jobs, especially the 1956 Ambassador that looks like a lightening bolt. I’m afraid the Kars from Kenosha were my hands-down faves from ’49-56, though I pretty much love all cars from that era. It seems what many people describe as “dowdy” is what I find charming for some reason…

The ’56 Ford has a soft spot in my heart: I had my first high speed ride in one. I severely injured my fingers in a hay elevator at a neighbors farm when I spent summers with Mennonite farmers (age 9), and they decided to take the fastest car available: the son’s ’56 Ford with a “Thunderbird” 312. Despite the pain, I couldn’t help but be thrilled by the deep-chested rumble of the big Y-block, and it was less distressing to watch the speedometer than my torn fingers; we barreled up Hwy 1 at about ninety, and I’m convinced he hit one hundred, but that could have been the angle from where I was sitting as well as my wishful thinking.

No; they just bought what was available, most often used then. Today, they usually drive Chrysler mini-vans; big families. And they all have cell phones. They’re pretty pragmatic, mostly. It really depends in which particular church community they’re affiliated to. Mennonites have a very big tent.

I am not sure if this is true or not but here in Soviet Canuckistan, the 56 Ford had quite the reputation as being a rust-bucket. Perhaps not true but my dad told me this many times, but he was a tried and true Chevy man well into the 1980s.

These Fords rusted in NZ quite well but have a stirling reputation we only got the 4 door officially but there were no remittance imports of 2 door sedans its known far and wide as the 56 Customline here.
In Australia this car with Meteor star grille was built thru till 59 complete with rusty rear doors and I used to see them in rural ares usually being done up by farmers sons having bee dragged out of their resting places of mant years in sheds The styling was carried over thru the English Zephyr/Zodiac/Consul cars so here it was timeless as those cars were a KIWI icon.I love 2 tone its cool

Absolutely true. I grew up with a 56 Ford Ranch Wagon V-8 and during the seven years we had it from new it was a constant fight against rust in the rocker panels, rear quarter panels and fenders. This was northwest Pennsylvania so there was plenty of snow, ice and road salt. The rust showed up within 3 years and it was my job to fight it. Had professional body work done after 4 years but that didn’t last either. Was a fast, fun car for my high school years though.

Grew up in a Black & White Fairlane 292 Thunderbird package ’56. Overdrive, dual exhaust, 4 barrel; well tuned, stock 120 mph + on the flat. Dad kept it from Januray 1956 until the spring of 1972. 135,000 plus miles and still didn’t use oil. It was a rust bucket and dad redid it twice. Would love to have one like it.

I have a ’56 Town Sedan with 292 Thunderbird Y8 under the hood with a Ford-O-Matic transmission. This thing was bought new and sat for 30 years before I got my hands on it. Engine has never been apart but extremely well serviced. Engine I got running again with simple plugs, wires, cap, rotor, points, coil, ballast resistor. Ive been running it for a year and a half now almost and I have yet had to add oil to it. Doesn’t smoke nor leak oil either.

Your photography is superb. Moody, even a bit noir. The shading and highlights bring out the shapes. Brilliant.

Glad you took note of the little-known Lifeguard safety features. Ford really tried, but ditched it quick. When the ’61s came out, Dad traded in the ’55 Stude and ordered a new Ford Sunliner with the optional front and rear seat belts and padded dash. The car was held up a month. It was the first ’61 convertible at the Chester, Pa., plant to get rear seat belts and it took them that long to figure out how to do it. We did finally get the car with belts all around, but no padded dash. Ever since, I’m not comfortable in any vehicle without my belt buckled, Dad bred it into me. My first school bus ride a few years later was very strange, no seat belts.

I never had one of these, but I did own three different ’55 Mercurys. A friend of my wife’s had a ’55 Ford 2-door very similar to the 1956 shown; I drove it quite a few times and liked it. V8 stick.

A friend of my gas station guy had a ’55 Customline 4-door with 3-speed; it had some kind of a big 4-barrel carb on it, don’t remember exactly what, but when I drove it once to run parts I found it slightly difficult to drive because the throttle linkage was very similar to a toggle switch. Fun times….

Very good article. As a kid when the 55-57’s came out (class of 61) I sure can like any of them. Have owned both 55 and 57 ford and chevy. Think the hottest was Dad’s 55 power pack chev. It must take a higher level purist than I to prefer one over the other very much. I’ve owned ramblers and studebakers also but the car I still have is a 1957, 2 door post 210 chevy wagon. Guess I’ll have that when I go to take the big dirt nap. Seems very resistant to rust and I still like it. A curious note. I can’t see us in the south buying many non air conditioned cars with the darker paint on the roof. The chevy’s of my memory and this article have white roofs. The fords in this article all have the darker color on the roof but that’s not what I remember. That white roof, tinted windows, and crankable vent windows still make life (barely) bearable without AC in an east Texas summer. I guess as a retired air conditioning guy that has replaced some of the more standard car fetish’s for me. Anyway, if one had to choose, the 55 chev and 57 fords are at the top of my list for looks. Thanks

I’ll grant that the Chevy of that year was the weakest of the Tri-5s; but the Ford…somehow it didn’t engage me the way the (much more poorly built, as it turned out) 1957s did. The lines aren’t bad; but they’re plain-jane.

And I never got that dip in the chrome trim on the side…GM products were given to it, too. And the 1957 Ford was absolutely ruined by it. But…what did it signify? Some trim lines, some folds, give continuity or balance. What was the point of such gaudy artwork?

I took some photos at a recent show of a 1956 Fairlane Victoria two-door hardtop, blue over white over blue — the same color scheme as the car in the top photo, but a hardtop, rather than a sedan. The color-keyed blue and white upholstery made me irrationally happy; I found it a very attractive combination.

Great looking cars, as Bryce mentioned they kept them in Australia for 2 more years, as a Customline sedan or Mainline ute, before the 59 Fairlane came in. Guy I knew years ago had a highly modified one with blown 460, tubbed, flip-front, etc…

One thing I absolutely dig in 1950’s cars are their two-tone paint job! And in such lovely pastel color as well! Car todays have such drab and unimaginative colors. Black, white, grey, silver, even if it’s real color it would be dull blue or dull red. WHy hasn’t anyone tried to bring back “fun” colors and two (or even triple) tone? It would work great in today’s tall slab sides, especially for minivans and crossovers. And wouldn’t cars with “interesting” i.e. less-conservative, “fun” shapes like the Juke and Beetle look great in pastel colors?

I am with your 100%. I suspect that it is a manufacturing cost thing. Fewer colors means fewer stops of the line to clean out spray equipment and change color, mostly. The early 90s brought some color, but not much since then. Why all the groupthink on color? It seems that among all of the gray/tan/white/black, red is the only perennial. Other colors seem to hit in waves where everyone offers it and then it goes away completely. Yellow was hot about 10 years ago, and orange the last few years. Oh well.

I also miss the variety of interior colors. Now it is nothing but tan and gray. The new Mustang with red leather is a nice change. Look at any promo material from the 50s or 60s and you would have 10-15 color choices and as many as 5 or 6 interior colors to choose from.

I remember an interesting article in Car and Driver on this point some years ago, talking with a color planner for one of the big automakers (I think Chrysler) about their strategies for using certain bright colors as attention grabbers and fashion statements.

An important thing to remember about cars of the sixties is that while there were quite a few colors on the list, a lot of them were pretty muted — you might have a pale gold, a pale green, a bronzish beige, Chrysler’s pink gold, and so forth — and a great many buyers just went with white or brown. Really bright colors, especially loud ones like the AMC Big Bad colors or the wilder Mopar hues, were relatively rare. (I suspect in part because with vintage paint technology, bright colors wouldn’t hold up particularly well over time.)

In a lot of ways, it’s not really in the manufacturer’s interest to offer a lot of wild colors, except on a limited basis for visibility purposes. It’s one thing if it’s a sports car like a Lotus Elan, but how many people are really going to order their Camry in Big Bad Orange?

Maybe not big bad orange for Camry, but something like dark brown/gold two-tone would look great in a conservative car like the camry. And cars like the Beetle and the Juke would look great in turquoise or pastel blue or pink or something.

In the late fifties my dad had one of these into which he and his buddies had crammed a Lincoln 430. This was before I was born, so I have nothing first-hand to tell you. Given what I’ve read about the 430, I doubt that it was very fast, but it probably had monumental torque. For years the nose cap for one of these cars sat in the backyard of my parents’ first house, next to the A-frame that doubled as a swingset. My friends and I used the nose cap as a fort.
My mother grew up in a little town that had one car dealer–Ford–so all my relations on that side of the family had Fords like this one, until they got sophisticated and went to town (New Orleans or Baton Rouge) and moved up–to Lincolns, of course.

Good article – I enjoyed your insights into the subtle and successful styling updates in the mid-1950’s. A possible strategy of saving the best for the last comes to mind, and brings back memories of the ‘one year only’ split-window Corvette of 1963. But I suspect car manufacturers, particularly in the 1950’s, weren’t that self-disciplined. It probably was just very skillful design.

Build quality and rust issues may indeed explain why there are so many fewer mid-1950’s Fords around than Chevrolets, and why Chevrolet went on to win the popularity contest in the end. I too always thought the Fords were more attractive in appearance, with a slightly more European look in the headlights and front fenders. They were ‘prettier’ cars than most others of the time in my opinion, with a liveliness and lightness of line compared to their competitors.

I agree with other comments re the safe and tedious colour choices in the current market, although I suspect that a two-tone paint scheme may be a tougher design challenge with today’s much more complex shapes. Notably, one company that does offer two-tone paint is Mini, the ultimate retro success story. In terms of numbers of actual colour choices, the even-more-retro Fiat 500 seems almost suicidal :). It will be interesting to see how many espresso-copper-mocha-olive-yellow-green versions appear on the street, compared to basic white, black, or red.

I still remember seeing 50’s cars as beaters, teenagers ‘hot rods, or elderly’s pristine ‘baby’ in mid 60s. It wasn’t til I was 4-5 y/o that I learned that some cars were older and ready for the junkyard. Then learned about model years, etc.

A ’56 Ford was at a community summer picnic when I was 6, as a ‘Smash a car’ event, I watched it most of the day, was so mesmorized. Then i got to hit it and could barely make a dent, but the adults still went ‘wow!’. I got to keep the tailfin trim piece above the taillight. Long gone 🙁

But I was more familiar with the ’56 Ford, when I saw a ’55 for the first time, I thought ‘ick’, since the turn signal looked ancient to me.

I’ll grant that the Chevy of that year was the weakest of the Tri-5s; but the Ford…somehow it didn’t engage me the way the (much more poorly built, as it turned out) 1957s did. The lines aren’t bad; but they’re plain-jane.

I married the ’56 Ford…. it was called the Victoria hardtop. Not the Crown Victoria, but Victoria non-the-less. Now I’m not sure if it was still called Fairlane, too. But it was turquoise and white like most of the pictures here. Hubby claimed it to be a lemon, but then, I never saw anything wrong with it, and subsequent cars we had as I endured the marriage, were torn down when nothing was wrong with them…and quit making payments on it, so it got re-poed… Should’a re-poed him!

I need some help, please! The 1956 Ford Fairlane was my parents first car together and they are having their 55th wedding anniversary next month. I’d like to find a die cast close to 1:24 (10-12″) scale of this great car. Needs to be the blue bottom, white through the middle and blue top(it’s the darker blue NOT the lighter blue). Does anyone know where or who I can get one from? Or if not a die cast, can I find a model car kit? Please help, thanks.

Splendid post and although I’m late in coming to the party – recent CC follower – I wanted to express my appreciation for the ’56, which I always thought to be one of the prettiest machines ever to have rolled out of Dearborn. I look at that front end and it makes me think of Jayne Mansfield.

i too owned a 1956 ford victoria with the 312 engine.to this day it was my all time favorite car. i still get exited when i see a 56 vic. i would like to find a die cast of a black and white 56, can anyone help. thank you

what i mean is the ’56 looked better than the original ’55. IMO the ’68 Charger looks better than the ’69. If you meant the ’68 Charger looked better than the ’66-’67, well that was much more than a grille update, pretty much new car.

I remember when I was 12 and I saved some money to buy 1/32 Revel plastic model. I held in my hands a 57 Bel Air and a 57 Ford Vicky, I had to choose one of them. Even if I didn’t like the front fascia of the Ford, I chose that.
My family was always a Ford oriented bunch and that helped to take the Vicky home.
I believe I still have it.

My first car was a 56 Ford Victoria convertible that I bought in 1962 for $40. It was about 3/4 worn out but I had a lot of fun with that car. One thing I liked to do was shift gears and hand the shift lever to a girl. It’s one of 3 cars I wish I still had.

Just about the only thing In don`t like onn this Ford is the cheap lookind gear shift control mounted under the steering column. This “two piece” look detracts from what is a nice looking interior.This setup lasted until `62. Why couldn`t Ford enclose both of them as a single unit?

Phil, that always irked me, too. I suppose Ford was just too focused on cost-cutting. Or maybe some executive was obstinate that the exposed shift tube didn’t matter much. At least for ’56 Ford dropped the stupid and cheap-looking “transparent dome” speedometer housing.
Another detail that gave ’55-’57 Chevrolets a nicer ambience than Fords of that era: cranks for the front vent windows. Ford stuck with the little finger-pinching latches for years to come.

I agree the ’56 Ford is the best looking of all the ’50’s Ford models. The best looking fins, for sure. The 2 and 3 tone paint jobs really stand out well and look great on these cars. The low light actually gives the photo a nice effect. Hope the car still looks as good today as it did 4 years ago.

I may go against the grain here but I never cared for Ford’s two tone job on the 55/56, the Chevys I much prefer with that paint treatment. I actually find Ford to have the leg up with the more strippo Customline models with the one tone paint to the 150 Chevys for both 56 AND 55, which both look very boxy and stubby sans the detail, the Ford looks lower more distinctive and cleaner. With the two tone it just looks like the hood was mismatched from the front view.

(I know this example isn’t to everyone’s taste here but it does show the inherent good lines of this body in a single color)

I like the ’55-’56 Fords better than their Chevy counterparts, even though a lot more of the ’55 through ’57 Chevrolets have survived, even in arid Arizona. There is something no-nonsense that I like in the Ford styling, and less internal conflict. For instance, the GM rooflines of the mid-50s look like carryovers from, say, 1950-1953 grafted onto the 1955 lower bodies, and at this distance in time, the ’55s and ’56s from any GM division look just sort of frumpy. The Fords (and the Mercurys, for that matter) seem more “of a piece” to me.

I always kinda liked how the ’55 and ’56 cars shared the headlight and taillight “look” (I’m not certain if they were identical, to economize for production/tooling).

I can imagine that *not* working so well with cars sized so differently–thinking of some fiberglass “kit” cars through the years awkwardly wearing bits and pieces sourced from more conventional vehicles.

I’ve always loved the 55-56 Fords and have two Bandai tin toy versions from my childhood (wagon attached – the other is a battered 55 Ranchero even though such a model did not exist until 57). The Japanese tin toy manufacturers produced a lot of Ford replicas during these years. The Ford Crown Vic was a special favorite as a kid, in party due to its rarity.

Although I could never say it in front of my Dad, who was a Ford man, I liked the 56 Chevy as well and thought it was better constructed than the Ford. These Fords were really popular back in the day but they rusted out quickly and didn’t seem to hold up as well as the Chevys in a variety of ways.

The first family car that I remember was a 1956 Ford station wagon, painted white and blue like the one in the picture, with the “legendary” Thunderbird V8. My dad was very proud of that motor. I don’t recall how fast it was (mom had 5 kids and would not allow shenanigans from dad behind the wheel), but the sound was distinctive, as others have pointed out. It did rust, however, and by the late 1960s when we traded it in for a 1962 Catalina wagon, the body was pretty far gone.

The high-line side trim makes the front fenders look about 6 feet high. The low-line trim treatment is sublime, making the car look low and long. Those Y-blocks do have a distinctive rumble, especially with Cherry Bombs for mufflers.

I agree with the majority in believing the ’56 Ford to be the best of the 52-’56 series. It was also true then that the 312 was the best engine for the Fords, as the 292 that came in many seemed to be a slug. I for one miss the colors of the era as well. No blandness then!

Very nice! I once worked with a guy about 20 years older than I am. His father was a policeman, and his first new car ever was a blue and white 55 Ford Fairlane Victoria hardtop. As a high schooler, my friend loved that car. Unfortunately, he fell asleep behind the wheel late one night and crashed it. He turned out to be OK, but his father went back to buying cheap older used cars.

In Australia Fords seem to have been much more popular than Chevs back in the fifties. The only ’56 Chevy I ever saw back then was owned by the local high school principal who kept it until at least the mid seventies. As a kid, I had to read the badge to tell what kind of car it was! But Fords were everywhere.

Chevys in 50s Australia didnt have a V8 option which may have limited their appeal model year 1960 was the first Chev V8, also Chevs were the bottom rung model with leather seat facings added only not true Bel Airs like we got in NZ.

When I was a boy, I thought the ’55 and ’56 Fords were the best looking cars in their class for most of that decade. The ’55, especially, just did something to me. Seeing the billboard that Sally Subtle posted brought back that same feeling of excitement that I first felt so long ago. I remember when my Dad brought his ’57 Studebaker to the Ford dealership to have some work done. The salesman, who was one of my favorite people, sent us home with a ’55 Country Squire. It was two toned red as well as wood grained. It was beautiful. That evening, I stood at the living room window looking at that Ford which was lit up by our porch light. I wanted so badly for Dad to buy it, but he did not, even though I know that was why Johnny had given it to him as a loaner. Whenever Dad brought a car in for work, Johnny never failed to please me, always sending us home with a nicer car. Thanks JP. Great post!

The ’56 always seemed a bit more, what shall I say, urbane(?) than the ’55, with its elongated grill ports and jet intake parking lights, changes that I relate to the Swedish modern design influence of the middle of the decade.

As Dbo relates, rust issues were at the forefront, as my Dad can attest. Here’s his “company car” when he worked for St. Regis Paper Co,, a Customline wagon, photographed at our new house on Grand Island, NY in the Spring of 1957. One winter in the Buffalo area, and there’s already a tint of orange starting on the edges of the rockers.

As befits my status of CC’r, my about-to-turn-7 self is at the wheel, with oldest and youngest brothers, Terry and Scott in the back, and Bruce, next oldest leaning out front.

The Ford had a 292, and its points burned out on the way to grandma’s house when it was brand new, stranding us a couple of miles away in the country. Maybe there were teething issues with the new 12 volt system…

My Dad had a ’55 Ford Mainline (stripper model), my sister had a ’56 Ford and I later got a ’57 Chevy Bel Air. The Fords rusted badly and the Chevy was great for many years.
Stylewise, they were all “lookers”.

Adding to comments on the 56 design, this year the Fairlane 2dr. hardtops got the lowered roof line of the Crown Vics. It is obvious when seen alongside the 55s. My first car was a 57 bel air hardtop with 283, power pak and overdrive. Learned to drive in a 54 Ford wagon that my family had for 10 years as a second car. It never broke and survived my two older brothers and myself not always treating it well.. My dad had company cars and alternated between Chevys and Fords. He always noted that the Fords had a better feel on the highway. I did not like the way my 57 cornered even after adding HD shocks and sold it after 6 mos and bought a 56 Fairlane for half the money. Was a 292, 4 barrel and overdrive. Was not as quick as the Chevy but I liked it better and thought it was a better looking car as well. Lived in Calif. No rust issues.

My dad had a 1957 Ford Fairlane 500 4 door. 2 tone beige and white. It had a 390 CU with a Police Interceptor in it. The car was only 5 months old. My brother just got his drivers license and wanted to borrow the car to go see his girl friend. Dad said, “That’s a no go son. I’ll let you drive and I’ll ride with you. I was 5 years old and dad put me in the back seat. We lived up the hill from a double set of rail road tracks. Just as we got to the first crossing the car stalled and my brother flooded the carburetor and the car wouldn’t start. My dad and brother got out to push the car off the tracks and the weight of the car plus the grade of the road was uphill both ways. Just about then a New York Central train came flying around the corner. I started screaming and running back and forth in the back seat. My dad reached around the front door and unlocked the back door. He grabbed me by the arm and threw me back into the grass away from the car. Seconds after me and mt dad cleared the car, the train hit the car dead in the middle. From the front bumper to just behind the front seat, the car rolled under the engine like a snowball. From the back seat to the rear bumper it was crumpled up in a ball and landed against one of the signal lights down the track from the crossing. I’ve had PTSD ever since. Fortunatetly, no one was hurt.